Accidental Plagiarism, Harrumph!

I'm sure all of you at one time or another would have created a seemingly excellent theme, only to realise soon afterwards that you had in reality unconsciously transcribed one of your favourite songs.

However, what about creating a melody and them discovering a song with an identical or similar one that you had never listened to before? What if it was a piece that you had not thought of at the time, or that you had not heard in many years?

At what point is it plagiarism, and at what point must the idea be discarded? What are your views on the ethics of this matter?

I'm sure it happens a whole lot. There are only so many patterns that people find pleasing in a scale, and we tend to use the same scales over and over, so in the hundreds of thousands and probably millions of pieces written, I'm sure it happens a lot. Mostly by coincidence, I'm sure, but there are a lot of times when composers 'borrow' themes from other composers.

But a theme is only part of a composition. Even if a composer borrows a theme, the music itself is often quite different because the counterpoint, rhythm, key, tempo, dynamics, harmony, and instrumentation are usually different. In that case it's not plaigarism. If we consider harmony and melody equally important in Common Practice Period music, then we would have to say that plaigarism happened innumerable times, due to the fact that the same harmonic progressions can be found over and over again in many composers' works. Is that plaigarism? No one seems to think so. A lot of themes and motifs crop up a lot too, the Dies Irae theme, lots of old German hymn tunes too. I remember thinking that Schumann plaigarised Bach because the Hymn in his Album for the Young is identical in melody and almost in harmony to a chorale in one of Bach's church cantatas (I forget which one), but as it turns out they both got the melody from the same, earlier source (probably Martin Luther or something).

I think plaigarism only occurs, when a composer decides to do more copying than thinking. It's fine to borrow little melody bits, harmonic progressions, rhythms, and orchestration techniques from your favorite composers (that's called 'influence') but only if you take those little bits and think of something original to say about them in your own voice. That's how almost all musical compositions are born. The borrowing is either conscious or unconscious - a lot of composers on this board use the common ii-V-I progression. Yet obviously none of them thought that progression up themselves. A few of them, though, have something creative to say about it (although one wonders how much more can really be said about ii-V-I). Some composers have relied heavily on borrowing, like Stravinksy. Yet they still have a good reputation and are not accused of plagarism because they took thier material and molded something unique with it.

I'm sure all of you at one time or another would have created a seemingly excellent theme, only to realise soon afterwards that you had in reality unconsciously transcribed one of your favourite songs.

However, what about creating a melody and them discovering a song with an identical or similar one that you had never listened to before? What if it was a piece that you had not thought of at the time, or that you had not heard in many years?

At what point is it plagiarism, and at what point must the idea be discarded? What are your views on the ethics of this matter?

Hah this is common in science, Leibnz and Newton started to develop calculus at the same time, Newton obviously got most of the credit and did most of the work, but all Leibnz got is a special notation named after him its all those dy/dx you would see in a calculus book.

Hah this is common in science, Leibnz and Newton started to develop calculus at the same time, Newton obviously got most of the credit and did most of the work, but all Leibnz got is a special notation named after him its all those dy/dx you would see in a calculus book.

A similar, but not really related incident is landing on the moon. Why does Neil Armstrong receive all of the credit, but not his colleague(s)? Also, why is Mount Everest always associated with Edmund Hillary, not Tenzing Norgay?

Wow, that was a very in-depth response, Nightscape! Thank you!

It's fine to borrow little melody bits, harmonic progressions, rhythms, and orchestration techniques from your favorite composers (that's called 'influence') but only if you take those little bits and think of something original to say about them in your own voice.

That's precisely the problem. To what extent is "borrowing" allowed? A few seconds? A chord progression? Less? More? When does a nod to the original composer become necessary?

Regarding chord progressions, technically they're royalty-free and cannot be plagiarised. However, I personally feel terrible when I even think of consciously copying a chord progression from a specific song - or perhaps it's just that I like the "DIY" approach. I shun cheating and dishonesty and wherever possible attempt to do things myself. I'm not averse to using chord progressions I think of myself, even if they're common ones like C Am F G, but I'm unsure if directly copying a chord progression I like from another song is "allowed".

think about how many ways conventional cohrd progressions can even be "mapped out" through time---harmonic rhythm can throw a new twist into an often used harmony. Combine that with the vastness of rhythm and melodic timing---we'll never run out.

I believe that it is Mattheson that stated in his Well-rounded kappelmeister that a composer is allowed to take themes and ideas from another composer so long as he "pays back with interest." Take for instance, Handel's Largo. Bononcini provided the theme from his opera Xerxes... (oddly enough, to the same words), and Handel changed this work into the masterpiece that we know today (and trust me, you don't want to hear Bononcini's version). Of course, if you're having major trouble composing, because of a stroke or other debilitating illness (handel... cough), it's perfectly acceptable to completely go after large movements without doing much in the ways of repaying.

It really only boils down to if your reputation is based on the things you've made on your own, or if it's based on copied things.